Share this

Brad Froman (guest)
NY:

The best way to stop all the protesters, pundits, and politicians from spewing their venom and divisiveness is to simply ignore them. Don't confront, don't point cameras at them, don't interview, just look the other way. They thrive on audiences and media coverage. You'll be surprised how quickly they would quietly go away by just pretending they don't exist. They are like bullies. They do it for attention. Just walk away.

Daniel Kerlinsky (guest)
NM:

We allowed managed health care and the states to close the asylums for the chronically mentally ill and then limited acute psychiatric hospital stays to three days and psychiatric care to four hours per year. The safety net is gone. Can we stop the incitement of disgust, denigration, devaluing, and hatred in our society? Just read the blogs on POLITICO to see how far away we are from decency.

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

Honestly, I think the focus post-Tucson should be for people to voluntarily tone down their own hate speech. Raising gun control in this poisoned environment only pushes the right wing nut jobs futher out onto the fringe.

Doug Shelledy (guest)
TX:

If guns are so prevalant in Arizona then why wasn't the shooter gunned down by multiple people on the sidewalk? Maybe, just maybe, the gun laws aren't the problem.

J.E. Bernecky (guest)
PA:

Less goofy would be for President Obama to decide that nudists should be represented in the front row, when he gives his State of the Union address.
It isn't a question of rights. How sane is anyone who would picket the dead?

Rachel Johnson (guest)
CA:

Blame the left, blame the right, blame the guns: does anyone care to blame Hollywood for their nonstop outpouring of violence that glamorizes kill shots and blood and guts? I doubt it. Would those calling for censorship now be will to call for a ban on Hollywood's depictions of violence. Of course not because we all watch it.

Jesse Wassner (guest)
NJ:

I am a Democrat certainly in favor of gun control but I agree that in every case of these mass killings, the shooter is a person who had inadequate or no mental illness care. I hate to agree with the gun lobby but that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Unfortunately, in this economic climate, treatment for mental illness is probably going to get worse, not better.

Mike Halloran (guest)
PA:

The First Amendment should protect members of the WBC from state action.
Their speech is vile and disgusting but it remains speech. However, because it remains so egregiously provocative, mourners should be immune from punishment should they elect to use the ribs of a WBC protestor as a punching bag.

Paul Sand (guest)
NJ:

Free speech is what is means - freedom to say or display whatever any American chooses, whenever any American chooses, wherever any American chooses. Liberals and foreigners hate free speech because they are cowards and feel threatened by it. And rightly so because Asians, Indians, east Europeans, South Americans, etc who entered the U.S. since 1965 do not belong in the U.S. We Americans will never give up free speech to appease liberal/foreign cowards.

Henry Crane (guest)
FL:

As far as I know, none of the shooting tragedies of the past 20 years has resulted in effective legislation for controlling access to guns by the mentally ill. Nor has any resulted in a lessening of political rhetoric involving words or images of violence. Honest people should acknowledge that although the majority of Americans favor both things, a vocal right-wing minority will continue to succeed in blocking them.

Jeff Redman (guest)
CA:

Not "an unseemly rush" to exploit a tragedy. Merely pointing out that this tragedy is similar to countless previous tragedies. That those who advocate for restriction of firearms ownership in accordance with some rational standard based on necessity (example: the vast majority of our nation's police officers and departments) have predicted that this would happen and will happen again and again, unless we do something to prevent it.

Art Harman (guest)
VA:

Rush Limbaugh blew the whistle on Democrats as being “a party that seeks to profit out of murder.” They immediately hauled out their wish list of gun control and trashing the First Amendment. Ronald Reagan perhaps said it best: "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

Dave Daley (guest)
CA:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is what the Second Amendment says. Shouldn't we all be able to agree that if an individual is too nutty to qualify for that well ordered militia, then they should not qualify to own a gun? If we keep selling guns to nuts, they are going to use them. How do we break that cycle?

Robert Lesieur (guest)
TX:

Clyde Prestowitz "the United States is the only one in which any nut can buy a bazooka" That is a fallacious statement. A full background check with ATF is required. But let's not let facts get in the way of our biases.

walter billings (guest)
MT:

It appears that there is no limit to the depth that the leftists and the Dems will go to attempt to further their agenda. These people, leftists, Dems, and their allies in the media, are absolutely despicable. These people will use any tragedy to further their aims with lies and distortions. However, today things are now different and most American citizens do not accept or believe the American left anymore. They have only lies to offer.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Open borders, but control guns? Ok, will gun control advocates please direct their vitriol towards the Justice Department, which fails to prosecute hundreds of gun law violations each year? If you're not prosecuting the criminals, what will more laws accomplish? Laws, by their nature, are to teach, not punish. But without the punishment, they don't teach anyone anything. Crazy gun laws won't stop crazy.

Luke Maffei (guest)
CA:

He never reloaded; it's not even in question. Had Congress marshaled up the moral courage to renew the assault weapons ban (or had Arizona showed some independence on an issue besides persecuting Latinos), every bullet after the 11th would not have been available for fire. Forensic experts can literally count the rounds and tell us who is dead or injured today as a direct result of the availability of that extended magazine. It's past time.

Paul Metsa (guest)
MN:

I grew up in a family, all of whom hunted. I own a 12-gauge shotgun passed down from my grandfather. I hunt grouse, my brother hunts deer. Neither one of us need a semi-automatic weapon. Banning these smaller weapons of mass destruction would keep all 300 million of us safer.

Amy Fox (guest)
TX:

We should not limit high power ammunition to law enforcement only. They are the government. Citizens must have the right to protect themselves from a corrupt government. This includes carrying the same kind of side arms and ammunition "they" are allowed.

Arno Naeckel (guest)
AZ:

Gun control activists are whistling past the graveyard for any new gun control measures. The twin Supreme Court decisions in Heller and Chicago have opened wide a chasm into which most of the current gun control measures on the books will eventualy be swept as unconstitutional. The Second Amendment in light of "Heller" places firearms beyond the government's ability to reguate under the Commerce Clause.

Corey Harbison (guest)
AZ:

Nobody is suggesting "gun" control. It does make sense to talk about controling "gun enhancements" and "gun accountability." These extended magazines turn regular "arms" which we have a right to bear into weapons of mass destruction, which we do not. Allowing concealed carry with no permit and no training is irresponsible. The Second Amendment even says those bearing arms need to be "well regulated." These aren't flintlock muskets.

Tom Oleson (guest)
IA:

This country is full of sheeple that aren't willing or able to defend themselves. They have given their lives to police and the government and hope someone is there to protect them when they are in need. People should to learn to protect themselves from harm. It is our duty to protect ourselves and those around us. Instead, so many run and hide, leaving the public behind when there is a need for protection. Calling 911 isn't the answer.

mtumba djibouti (guest)
ME:

Alden asks: "Why is the United States the only advanced democracy in the world whose political leaders are scared of their own citizens?" Not that I believe this is an accurate assesment of how American "leaders" actually feel, but if they did, might it be because so many of them (Democrats in particular - and Democratic leadership especially) knowingly vote against their constituents clearly articulated preferences?

Charlie Given (guest)
TX:

As a lifetime member of the NRA, I am really tired of being blamed for every act of violence carried out by some nut in this country. I am not crazy or a "nut" because I enjoy the shooting sports and also chose to carry a weapon for my protection as well as the protection of those around me. Nor do I deserve to have those rights taken from me due to someone else abusing their rights.

Kim Anglebrandt (guest)
MI:

No. Law abiding citizens, guns, clip and bullets are not killing people. Criminals, nutjobs and terrorists are killing people. And to Mr. Alden, perhaps the question should be rephrased. Why are Americans not afraid of their government? You would not get enough votes to amend the Constitution, and people will not willingly hand them over to a government already known for its lack of control and trampling of people's rights.

Arthur DeSeve (guest)
FL:

While we're talking about gun control, let us not forget the deaths caused by drugs, alcohol, speeding, child abuse, and starvation. Most of these are the cause of many more deaths per year than a crazy man with a gun. Why don't we start with the biggest causes and work our way down the list. In reply to Edward Alden, why do you think that the people should fear the government?

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

First, this tragedy was used by liberals to suggest that speech (specifically conservative speech) should be labeled incendiary and banned. Now the tragedy is being used by liberals to resurrect their gun ban agenda. The issue at hand is mental illness. We saw it with the Virginia Tech massacre and we're seeing (and ignoring) it again. By all means, let's avoid dealing with the hard stuff and selfishly use it for our own political gain. Great.

Chris Sells (guest)
AL:

In such a dangerous society, I must ask a question. If the need or circumstances arises that one must purchase a handgun, would you not want the ability to do so? An example here along the Gulf is hurricanes. We witnessed the lawlessness of both citizens and law enforcement during Katrina in New Orleans; in that situation I would like the ability to protect myself and my family. I do not have any guns, but I like knowing if I need one I can buy one, legally.

JP Stearns (guest)
KY:

Thankfully, we have not seen significant calls for blanket banning of guns. Perhaps, we've reached a consensus nationally that gun ownership is an individual right. Literally millions of Americans own guns, the vast majority never having any confrontations with the law related to their guns, or even having serious firearm related accidents. This tragedy was a result of one young man's friends and family failing to get him the help he needed.

David Paul (guest)
OH:

I believe that it is already illegal for convicted felons to possess guns, but they still do and use them to shoot people all of the time. Do you think that these felons are going down to the local Wal-Mart to buy these weapons? No, they are obtaining them illegally. Now just suppose that you increase gun control laws. Do you think that this will keep people who are planning on using them for illegal purposes from obtaining them?

Michael McGlothlin (guest)
IN:

Knee-jerk "gun control" laws won't make the extended magazines magically disappear from our streets. Realistically, anyone with a basic understanding of power tools and some simple supplies could make one of those things in their garage. This is posturing and nothing more, so one group of pols can say "We're doing something." The parents in his home are more responsible for this than the gun, or the "straw-magazine." It's lazy thinking on display.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.